Good morning one and all. This is the Jul January 21st, 2026, hard to imagine, meeting of the city of Cocoa Beach special magistrate. And uh I my name is Lonnie Groot and I'm going
to give a a couple of brief remarks before we start. First of all, I apologize for not wearing a tie today, but I either hurt myself weightlifting or ate something, but I couldn't get my buttons tied snapped on any shirt this morning. So, else I'm just turning into
a toad. One or the other. I don't know. So, anyway, we're here today to to hear cases in which the city has alleged violations of the codes and ordinances of the city. Uh, these are quai judicial proceedings, which means I am acting
somewhat like a judge. uh the city is the complainant, the petitioner, the however you want to frame that and uh is has alleged a violation of various codes against various property owners. Some of
you have heard this before and I apologize that for that. Uh the city presents it as evidence. The respondent property owner has the ability to cross-examine the city's witnesses as they appear and testify.
And then at the end of the city's case, the respondent property owner has the right to present his or her case. And the city also has the right to cross-examine the witnesses for the property owner respondent. Uh at the end
of the proceeding, I'll evaluate the evidence, evaluate how it relates to the codes and make a a finding of violation or no violation and uh assess a fine if that's if there's a violation found. Um
all testimony today is given under oath. Um and um Miss Crawford, do you think anything I can I missed? >> No. No, sir. >> Okay. That being said, anybody who plans on testifying today, would you please
stand up and raise your right hand and I will swear you in. Let's start here. Would you state your name, please? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Daniel Crawford. >> Yes, sir. >> Mayor Keith. >> Yes. >> Carol. >> Yes, sir. In the back. >> Jill. Each of you solemnly swear the
testimony about the given matters not here, but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of God. Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. Oh, we'll take care of that
that later on. That being said, uh before and so those administrative matters been taken. Let me just take care of one more administrative matter and that is the approval of the corrected minutes of the July 9th 2025
meeting uh the October 8th 2025 meeting and the November 13th 2025 meeting. So I've read those and have signed them and they are now approved. which will make the attorney general of the state of Florida
happy. All right, the first case before us today is a is a request for brief hearing case number 25-54. Um the respondent was is Coconut Cove Yach
Club, Inc. and uh is is it Mr. Beadzil? >> He's not here. I'm James. >> Okay. Let's You're familiar with >> Yes.
>> Yes. I'm familiar with with Mr. >> J. And what's your relationship to the corporation? >> I own the marine and restaurant and I've been leasing the parking. >> You're the >> You're the lei.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. And how what's the city's view? That's the lei is not the property owner. >> Uh correct. But we're okay with uh Mr. James Stadler uh requesting the rehearing.
>> Okay. Cuz he didn't. It was somebody else. >> Correct. Yeah. It was AJ. >> Yeah. It was actually the property owner requested the rehearing. >> I don't know what the prop is the property owner consented to this. Do you know? >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Palmer says you
>> Yes, he can speak for Mr. And that's what the property owner has said. Okay. Then let's hear the property owner's request for rehearing first. >> Okay. >> And uh it's the the burden's on the property owner, the respondent, the person who's been found in violation to
to assert why there should be a reharing of the case. And then the city will get to argue. Well, first of all, let me ask you that. Do you consent to a reharing? >> Yes, >> you do. >> Yes. So, you want to present the case over again? >> Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. Then what I'm going to do, okay, we're going to let's reverse. Um, the city consents to the motion for rehearing. I'm going to grant the motion for rehearing. And now, let's rehear the case. And the city presents this
evidence first, just like in the beginning. >> I didn't believe that we were prepared to rehear the case today. I thought we were just asking for the rehearing. >> Okay. Okay. Okay, >> that's that's true. I thought >> Okay, >> that's the city's not ready to to
present a case again today. >> No, we were hoping to present the case in February and Mr. AJ Bedzle would be available at the time. >> I I that's what I thought to begin with, but okay. The the motion for reharing by consent of the city has been granted.
The case won't be reheard now. It'll be reheard at the on the February. What date is it? February, we're going to meet >> um I believe it's February 11th. >> February 11th. It'll be heard on February 11th. I don't have to swear you in today and
you don't have to do anything today, but that that there will be a hearing on February 11th. Rehearing this case that again that was redundant, but rehearing the case. >> Okay. Okay. The next case is a Massie hearing
involving case number 25-46. Uh the property owner is Mary Goldamp and there was a prior order entered in this case. And Miss Crawford, would you like to proceed? >> Uh yes. I would like to uh present the
PowerPoint into evidence for this case. >> Okay. Um, as stated, this is case 25-46. The respondent is Mary Goldamp. He is the owner of 1350 South Atlantic Avenue. Uh, parcel and legal description as
shown on the screen. >> Just so you'll know. >> Yes. >> Not that I can look at another screen. Just so you'll know, the middle screen isn't on. Is that me or is that >> a flaw? I just That's the only reason.
Is the power on? >> Thank you, Tristan. >> There you go. >> Okay. >> Okay. I just needed to turn it on. Okay. >> Ah, there we are. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, uh parcel and legal description as shown
on the screen. Uh this is uh an eagle view of the property uh from property appraiser and a brief synopsis of the case. On May 14th, 2025, you found a respondent's
property to be in unsafe condition and in violation of the following codes. Permits required inspections. Uh section 10-22 enumerated conditions.
Section 302.1 sanitation, 304.5 foundation walls, 304.6 exterior walls, and 309.1 infestation. The respondent was ordered to achieve compliance immediately or within 24
hours after the orders were posted. A fine of $250 for each day of non-compliance was issued. On May 19th, 2025, the orders were MIA certified mail. On May 27th, 2025, the orders were
posted to property. On June 18th, 2025, the orders were picked up from USPS. On August 19th, 2025, the build official uh red tag properties on again as the previous red tag had fell off.
On November 5th, 2025, I met with the respondent on the property and told her she should not living on property. It was deemed a safe occupation. She living on the property. However, she also denied property being unsafe. On November 10th, 2025, met with the
respondent at the property and reminded her that she should not be living on the property as it was deemed safe. On November 25th, 2025, the Cocoa Beach PD community paramedic and code enforcement met with a respondent on her property to ask her to leave the property
voluntarily. The respondent declined alternative living solutions and refused to leave the property. On January 8th, 2026, the notice of Massie hearing was mailed via certified mail and posted to property.
And above or go through some image of the property after U May hearing. So this is July 1st. We've got trash and debris, the dilapidated garage, exterior walls, dilapidated
exterior walls. uh the dilapidated walls and that's also where the bee infestation is or dilapidated walls and debris on the front porch uh blocking safe means of egress. This
is a small view of the back of the property. Uh this is the August 19th unsafe posting and this is November 25th, 2025. Uh even more trash and debris has been
placed on the property, the backyard, the sideyard. This is the front yard and the entryway into the home. This is the left side of the property where we believe the respondent has been
living >> inside the house. >> Yes, inside. >> That's your means of ingress. Egress. >> Yes. Right in front of the refrigerator. There's a door. Um I couldn't get a great picture of it
because I didn't want to trespass. Um the yard. This is the following day on November 26th. There is a close picture of the dilapidated wall. And these are dead rats.
And then there's gold cap here. >> I don't believe so. Miss Oerie, would you please go and call the halls? >> Yes. She is not out there.
>> All right. Thank you. mix off streeter having called and I having called the respondent to appear and there being no response. Uh I will find that the property continues to be in violation as
alleged by the city and uh what I I just tried to pull my order up and my my computer went dead. What I 250 a day? >> Yes. >> It was continuing to run at 250 a day. >> Yes. And we would like yeah we would like that to start on the day um May
27th 2025. >> So what did the orders say about in terms of a fine at that time? >> Uh the the orders state that $250 a day until compliance was achieved um >> immediately or from the time right
>> that those were posted. >> And the order was >> yes it was posted to property on May 27th. Okay. Then we'll grant the relief that that the city's requested and under the
president of the Massie case, the city has proven that on the date of compliance, the propertation and uh that the fine of $250 a day continues to be warranted. And uh I don't know that, like I said, I
was trying to pull my order up again. I read it the other day. Did I spec I spec specifically found to be unsafe? Right. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Did did we specifically find it to be a fire hazard, too? >> That that is that there's a lot of fuel
on that property. I mean I mean I'm not a fire expert, but >> yeah, I know that we found her in violation of savings of egress. >> Yeah, I remember that. Yeah, >> but >> because that is it's not just her egress and >> right
>> it's the public safety personnel they're in danger of going in there like that. >> So any that'll be the order and I am going to add a finding that I believe that the prior findings are to be in effect and that the property unless the city
objects that the property re represents a fire hazard to the public. >> Yes. and public safety personnel. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. That'll be the order. Just since I didn't mentioned, but we, you
know, in my introductory remarks, we're obviously in sunshine and uh although we're not a public hearing per se because we call witnesses, the public is obviously invited. And I know you put it on YouTube because I've had to watch
the YouTubetubes myself as as disgusting as my appearance is uh to hear what I've said before and make sure I remember the results correctly. But since there may be somebody out there uh listening who
would be would be interested in in what the city does and how they handle how it handles matters such as this. Uh what is the city's likely actions once >> you you have a person living in an
unsafe structure and it's it's a hazard. Do you have a demolition condemnation process or is there anything you're going to proceed with? >> We do, but I believe we have to formally evict um the resident through county court. So it'll be taken over by our
city attorney. >> Okay. But the point is the city's just not leaving it there saying, "Oh, there's a person apparently living in an unsafe structure and >> they're going to be pay us 250 a day." That's not where it's at. The city is
taking action to keep the occupants safe and public safety personnel safe. >> Yes. >> And people living proximate to the property safe. >> Yes. >> A fire occurs there. It's there's some pretty there's some stuff that could be
accurate. uh the if it burns. Okay. The next case is case number 25-193. The >> this this case come into compliance and it doesn't need >> Oh, it's in compliance. Good. >> Yep. >> That's the goal, isn't it?
>> Yes. >> Okay. The case, how about 25271? >> Uh, this one does need to be heard. >> Okay. Case number 25-271. Um the property owner is Al Alia Place
LLC. The red agents Joseph P. Aldikov and the city may proceed. Is the property owner here? >> Is not here. You may proceed. >> Okay. Um so this is an aerial view uh from property appraiser. Uh this is a
large apartment complex off of South Atlantic. Um, a brief case synopsis. On November 13th, 25, you found the respondent in violation of the following codes. Permits section 105.1.
Inspections 110.1. Section 506 sanitary drainage system. 304 Exterior structure. Section 304.1 Stairways Porches and Balconies. 302
Exterior Property Areas. Due to the immediate safety concerns of the dilapidated staircases, the respondent was ordered to attain compliance on before November 15, 2025 by blocking access to the staircases or
obtaining valid permits and correcting the conditions of the staircases. Other violations were also ordered to be corrected, including the sewer pipe repair and parking lot restoration. On November 14th, 2025, I mailed the orders via certified mail and posted the
orders to property On November 15th, 2025, I respected the property and observed some staircases with access blocked off. However, many dilapidated staircases were not blocked off. On November 17th, 2025, I emailed a
registered agent and requested that the remaining dilapidated staircases be blocked off. I hatched an Eagle View image of the property and marked the most egregious staircases with a red X. I also expressed my concern for the way some staircases were blocked off as only
caution tape and small pieces of wood were used. I didn't feel as if that was safe enough to prevent people from using the staircases. On November 19th, 2025, I completed a reinspection of the property and the remaining dilapidated staircases were
blocked off. On December 5th, 2025, I observed the staircase blockades were removed and the holes and cracks in the stairs were patched. I emailed a registered agent that the staircases needed to remain blocked or permits needed to be pulled.
On January 7th, 2026, the revised notice of Massie hearing was posted to property. On January 12th, 2026, I met with maintenance to locate the broken pipe. The pipe was no longer visible. Additionally, the holes in the
dilapidated parking lot were filled with rocks. As of January 20, 2026, no permits have been obtained for the staircase repairs. Access to the stairs has not been blocked off. The sewer pipe has not been located for reinspection, and the
parking lot is still in dilapidated condition despite the holes being filled by rocks. Um, so now we're going to go through some images from my inspection on November 15th.
Um, this is caution tape. And these are examples of staircases that aren't blocked off. And then in my opinion they should have been blocked off. Not blocked off. This is the um aerial overview with the
red X's where I requested the additional staircases be blocked off. Um so this is my reinspection on November 19th, 2025. Uh additional wood planks have been added. Um,
I noticed driving past the property on December 5th that all of the blockades that were previously there had been removed. So, these are pictures again, >> but the stairs have not been
>> no permits have been pulled. Um, and then you'll notice, uh, in this picture, for example, it's been patched with like a dark gray substance. I I can't say what is. So, this is they they made some patches
and then they took off the blockades >> without coordination with >> correct. I mean obviously there wasn't any permits for it. So >> yeah, >> but there was no other >> no >> non-permit oriented commun communication. >> Correct.
>> Um >> and again uh these are just pictures. Um as of January 7th there are no blockades. >> So the other repairs rocks in the pavement and that's satisfactory. Um, so this is a picture of smoke coming out of
the the sewer pipe uh below the AC unit. This is when the city completed a smoke test um last January. And this is an image of the exact same location. Things have been moved around
and the pipe can no longer be located. And additionally, even more work has been completed without permits. >> So, >> so they did something. We just don't know what it was, and it wasn't permitted, whatever it was. >> Yeah. I followed up uh with the and
maintenance, and they can't tell me what was completed and where the pipe is, which is confusing. >> Okay. >> Um, >> what about the pavement? It looks like I got to include the
pictures parking lot. >> Putting rocks in to fill in unpaved parking lot. Not is putting rocks to maintain an
otherwise paved parking lot acceptable when you need to have a paid parking lot. Okay. So really what they haven't done anything >> correct nothing >> and they've done stuff but you don't know what it is and whatever it was was done was inadequate.
>> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. And you want the PowerPoint introduced, right? >> I do. Thank you. >> And you did on I I it's admitted as evidence as it is on the prior case which uh 24-2-46 which uh >> yes
>> the wasn't here to object anyway. >> Okay. I'm going to find that all violations have continued to exist. And what was the fine in that? >> Um we the the order stated that $250 a
day would be imposed >> as of the date of required for by compliant for compliance. >> Yes. >> Once again, my lost off my screen. So So that'll stay into effect also. >> Okay. But you these units are occupied and
people are traversing the stairs and all that. >> Yes. All occupied. >> Okay. All right. Well, that'll be the order that this was a Massie hearing. >> The respondent did not come into compliance as ordered in the prior order and the fine will stay in effect.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. The next case is a citation case number 752. The respondent is U Lavat Olen. Have I got that right? Lavant Olson.
Vanessa B and Jan Sigetti. That's the property owner. >> Yes. Uh Vanessa requested to contest the citation. However, she is not present. >> Okay.
Um then you may proceed after we call the halls. I'm sorry that's an age-old practice which is good to do make record very clear. We went and looked for the respondent.
City said he did. In the old days, like Abraham Lincoln times, they used to call the halls to go find the attorneys and bring them into court because they were wandering around all the time looking for clients. All right. Uh,
Daniel Crawford has uh called the halls and uh the respondent has not responded. So, you may proceed. >> Mr. Groot. >> Yes. >> The city would just like to since that she is not here to wanted to she wanted to um contest the citation due to the
fact that she's not here to contest the citation. The city would just like the citation to stand. >> Well, it will explain the citation again. uh for specific misleading advertisement >> and um
>> and so under the citation there it's like a traffic ticket. >> Yes. >> They're cited for a violation and the violation carries with it a fine, right? >> Yes. >> Unless the person exercises their due process rights to contest the citation.
>> Yes. >> Okay. and this property owner contested the citation and then chose for whatever reason not to appear at the hearing at which the citation was contested. The only question that remains is
is it the city's position that you have an opportunity to contest a citation, have a hearing scheduled, and that the you don't appear that the citation stands and there's no opportunity to be heard again. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just for the record that that is
the position of the city. Makes a lot of sense to me that if a respondent or a cited person or entity uh contest a citation and they do not appear at the hearing which they initiated and they
have the right to have due process u then when the citation stands as a result of non-appearance it stands and there is no opportunity to be heard again. the opportunity was the time that it was scheduled absent the city finding
out that a person went into labor was in the emergency room or something of that nature. You would agree with that? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, then that citation will stand. Is there anything further to be brought before the special magistrate today?
>> No, sir. All right. Thank you all for attending. We're a journey.